From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AFCE83858D35; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:36:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AFCE83858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1673476611; bh=c+K8zCsDBmwDvDwxKMT65WI3CuKR34CWcmaLtytR5cg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=iNjIa9Zui2NQPYuNDypFd00wff9cvM0o6H6haHI4k/AFbzTt4Wix+s/Fu92d7fiD9 BL5YfCR8QiCgTP7Sj6mXX3ImsGV7wYZQ8QUSg3+1BdgCuEzUSDZq/DYpahQy5hXcNM VZCuBx5FlZ2FmTBvtxpzCP9xU/SyX1X6NyUJ4ePg= From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/99411] s311, s312, s31111, s31111, s3110, vsumr benchmark of TSVC is vectorized by clang better than by gcc Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:36:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99411 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- Compared to aocc we also do worse on zen4: jh@alberti:~/tsvc/bin> ~/trunk-install/bin/gcc -Ofast -march=3Dnative s311.= c=20=20=20=20=20=20 jh@alberti:~/tsvc/bin> time ./a.out real 0m3.207s user 0m3.206s sys 0m0.000s jh@alberti:~/tsvc/bin> ~/aocc-compiler-4.0.0/bin/clang -Ofast -march=3Dnati= ve s311.c=20 jh@alberti:~/tsvc/bin> time ./a.out real 0m1.221s user 0m1.221s sys 0m0.000s aocc code seems similar to clangs from two years ago except for additional = use of avx512. main: # @main .cfi_startproc # %bb.0: # %entry xorl %eax, %eax .p2align 4, 0x90 .LBB0_1: # %vector.ph # =3D>This Loop Header: Depth=3D1 # Child Loop BB0_2 Depth 2 vxorps %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0 movq $-128000, %rcx # imm =3D 0xFFFE0C00 vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1 vxorps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm2 vxorps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm3 .p2align 4, 0x90 .LBB0_2: # %vector.body # Parent Loop BB0_1 Depth=3D1 # =3D> This Inner Loop Header: Dep= th=3D2 vaddps a+128000(%rcx), %zmm0, %zmm0 vaddps a+128064(%rcx), %zmm1, %zmm1 vaddps a+128128(%rcx), %zmm2, %zmm2 vaddps a+128192(%rcx), %zmm3, %zmm3 addq $256, %rcx # imm =3D 0x100 jne .LBB0_2 # %bb.3: # %middle.block # in Loop: Header=3DBB0_1 Depth= =3D1 incl %eax cmpl $1000000, %eax # imm =3D 0xF4240 jne .LBB0_1 # %bb.4: # %for.cond.cleanup vaddps %zmm0, %zmm1, %zmm0 xorl %eax, %eax vaddps %zmm0, %zmm2, %zmm0 vaddps %zmm0, %zmm3, %zmm0 vextractf64x4 $1, %zmm0, %ymm1 vaddps %zmm1, %zmm0, %zmm0 vextractf128 $1, %ymm0, %xmm1 vaddps %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 vpermilpd $1, %xmm0, %xmm1 # xmm1 =3D xmm0[1,0] vaddps %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 vmovshdup %xmm0, %xmm1 # xmm1 =3D xmm0[1,1,3,3] vaddss %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0 vucomiss .LCPI0_0(%rip), %xmm0 seta %al vzeroupper retq=